Why does one need a progressive scan player?

[Jerm]

Okay, I tried to do a search (here & HTF) but I was having trouble finding an answer...so I will put it to the great members of the board.
Why do you need a progressive scan player if you have an HDTV. I know that you do...I just don't really know why.
And, if whoever answers this (tomdkat, chromy, another person with a vast amount of knowledge) could you put this in simple laymens terms.

Thanks guys...

[MurDiddlyUrdler]

Here's a nice explanation from Panasonic on what progressive scan is and what the benefits are. They do a nicer job than I have the time to explain myself. Hope it helps.

[snipsnapsappy]

I guess the easiest way to explain it is that it creates a smoother picture than interlaced video. The picture also is able to handle motion better. It also gets rid of the scan line effect found with normal TVs.

However, all HDTV's have progressive scanning built in to them. So a progressive scan player is not a necessity, however, dvd players usually have better progressive processors in them than most tvs.

[tomdkat]

I tend to like this description of progressive scan as it has animated pictures...

As for why it's good to have progressive scan capability in a DVD player, it's for these primary reasons:

• Doing the de-interlacing on the DVD player side minimizes the potential for image resolution loss due to repeated digital to analog conversions. If you have an interlaced DVD player connected to a HD capable display, the player outputs an analog interlaced video signal that the display must convert to digital, de-interlace, and then maybe convert back to analog for display, as is the case with rear-projection TVs. if the RPTV detects a progressive analog signal, it bypasses the de-interlacing step and simply passes the de-interlaced analog signal to the display "guns". I'm not sure how Plasma, LCD, DLP, or LCOS sets work in this regard.
• Doing the de-interlacing on the DVD player side can yield BETTER results than some HD displays since the player can have better de-interlacing components than the display will have. That's why the Panasonic RP82 and XP30 and Denon DVD-1600 and 3800, etc., are SOOO popular. They use the FLI2200 (Faroudja) de-interlacing chipset which does an outstanding job at de-interlacing. Combine with that DCDi processing and now video material can be de-interlaced MUCH better than a HD display without DCDi would ever be able to de-interlace video sourced material.

If you have a DVD player with a DVI output and a HD display with a DVI input, you now have a purely digital video "path" so the digital to analog conversion issues are eliminated in the link between the DVD player and the display.

Peace....

[tomdkat]

Originally Posted by snipsnapsappy

However, all HDTV's have progressive scanning built in to them. So a progressive scan player is not a necessity, however, dvd players usually have better progressive processors in them than most tvs.

I've read where a number of Mitsubishi HD-monitor owners feel a progressive scan DVD player is practically required with Mits HD monitors (say at least model year 2001 or 2002 and earlier) because the de-interlacers built-in to those Mits TVs basically "sucked" (using the word used by the Mits TV owners. ). I'm not sure how the built-in de-interlacer has improved in the 2003 or later models, if at all.

Pioneer Elite HD monitors have great de-interlacers and the Pioneer Elite PRO 510 faired well against progressive scan DVD players!

Peace...

[chipmac]

Tomkat's right the deinterlacing solution in the Mits models prior to thew 2004 lineup was very much subpar. The 2004 models now have a better deinterlacing solution as well as much better stretch modes. The improvements pu them right up there with the Pioneer Elite for a fravtion of the price.

Now about the need for a progressive scan DVD player; it's my opinion that it's not that much of a necessity any more. The reason is that most brands of HDTV monitors will now scale as well as deinterlace the incoming signal. Mits is one of the few brands left that dispays a native 480p signal as sent from the DVD player so if you have a player with the Faroudja chip in it you'll get a fantastic image. However if you own a brand of TV that takes that wonderful deinterlaced image and processes in order to scale it to 540p, 720p, 960i or 1080i for display then what good is it? If your TV does this to the signal you might as well just feed it the original interlaced signal straight off the DVD since the superior deinterlacer in the player is not even being used for display. In otherwords if your TV scales the signal to 540p for display it will do this regardless if the signal being fed to it is 480p or 480i. The TV is still processing the signal and defeating the purpose of the progressive conversion in the player.

[Dr. Evil]

In otherwords if your TV scales the signal to 540p for display it will do this regardless if the signal being fed to it is 480p or 480i. The TV is still processing the signal and defeating the purpose of the progressive conversion in the player.

I take it that's why the image on the Hitachi 51F500 was so poor?

My non-elite Pioneer is one of the sets with a lousy line doubler, and it was progressive scan, non 16x9 enhancement or newer transfers from hi-def masters that made the biggest single difference in image quality.

RD

[tomdkat]

Originally Posted by chipmac

Now about the need for a progressive scan DVD player; it's my opinion that it's not that much of a necessity any more.

Well, I counter this with the new set of progressive scan DVD players that upconvert to 720p or 1080i. Some of these output those resolutions via DVI connections and the Momitsu outputs those resolutions over component video. This kind of player would come in handy if one wasn't willing to wait for HD-DVD and wanted 1080i from current DVDs _today_ and had a TV that didn't allow you configure the scaling resolution.

Another question is can a DVD player upscale to 1080i equal to or better than a HDTV, if you could configure it to upconvert all inputs to 1080i? Can a progressive scan DVD player that can output a 720p signal upconvert better than a HDTV that supports 720p as a native resolution?

Peace...

[chipmac]

Yes but Tom those aren't really true progressive players now are they. They really are players that scale the image to a new resolution which is different than a player that is true progressive scan and only deinterlaces from 480i to 480p. On top of that I believe that there are already some HDTVs from Pioneer, Hitachi and Sony that have built in scalers and take any scan rate and display at either 720 or 1080i and they might do as good if not better job than those DVD players you mention.

[tomdkat]

Originally Posted by chipmac

Yes but Tom those aren't really true progressive players now are they. They really are players that scale the image to a new resolution which is different than a player that is true progressive scan and only deinterlaces from 480i to 480p.

I haven't read anything indicating de-interlacing is related to lines of resolution (in terms of 480p or 720p). If the Bravo D-1, Samsung HD931, and Momitsu all output a 720p signal (Momitsu doing that via component video connection) that sounds like a progressive signal since it's de-interlaced but at a much higher resolution. In the case of 1080i, there isn't any de-interlacing going on just the upconversion. If 720p isn't a de-interlaced resolution, why is the "p" at the end?

On top of that I believe that there are already some HDTVs from Pioneer, Hitachi and Sony that have built in scalers and take any scan rate and display at either 720 or 1080i and they might do as good if not better job than those DVD players you mention.

That would depend on what they use for the de-interlacing. I believe some Samsung HDTVs use Faroudja de-interlacers w/ DCDi, but I'm not 100%. If any of these TVs can display 720p natively, then one could take the 720p output from any of the DVD players I listed and bypass the TVs de-interlacing if they choose to watch the video at the 720p resolution. If they choose to watch at 1080i, then an upconversion is required.

What makes you think progressive scan is for 480 resolution only?

Peace...

[chipmac]

You're right that didn't come out the way I intended it. What I meant was that if you have a player that only does deinterlacing such as the type we were talking about at the start of this thread this is what I mean as true progressive player. The ones that do progressive and scale like the ones you're refering to are progressive players but their true purpose is for scaling the resolution to HD from SD. On the Samsung if you don't use the DVI port you aren't even using the Faroudja deinterlacing chip.

So my whole point is that many brands are improving their internal line doublers and are also now scaling to HD resolutions or at least to 540p so the need for a progressive player is not as great as it was a year or so ago. Now if you were to buy the new Denon 5900 which deinterlaces, scales, does SACD and DVDA then there might be a valid reason but to get a POS $100 progressive player I think is a waste.

[tomdkat]

Originally Posted by chipmac

What I meant was that if you have a player that only does deinterlacing such as the type we were talking about at the start of this thread this is what I mean as true progressive player. The ones that do progressive and scale like the ones you're refering to are progressive players but their true purpose is for scaling the resolution to HD from SD.

I think the true purpose of the players I've mentioned is to provide the best video quality at the highest resolution the owner chooses to have it display. To me, scaling and de-interlacing are separate functions and therefore separate issues. For all I know the Bravo D-1 can scale very well but de-interlace horribly or vice-versa.

These players are also capable of outputting a 480p signal in addition to the upconverted ones.

On the Samsung if you don't use the DVI port you aren't even using the Faroudja deinterlacing chip.

With the Samsung, you can't get 720p or 1080i video via component connections but only via DVI. I would be surprised if a Samsung which output a 480p signal via component connections used differentde-interlacing chips than when outputing a 720p signal.

So my whole point is that many brands are improving their internal line doublers and are also now scaling to HD resolutions or at least to 540p so the need for a progressive player is not as great as it was a year or so ago. Now if you were to buy the new Denon 5900 which deinterlaces, scales, does SACD and DVDA then there might be a valid reason but to get a POS $100 progressive player I think is a waste.

The players I've been discussing are $200 - $300 POS players, #1...

#2, for those who own HDTVs but don't have progressive scan DVD players, the players I mention as well as non-upconverting progressive scan DVD players are still VERY useful

#3, as for the "new wave" of HDTVs coming out, with the TVs having DVI inputs and the DVD players having DVI outputs, a 100% digital video "path" sort of changes the "where is it best to deinterlace" debate since the analog conversion on the DVD player side is eliminated. I understand your point, so don't think I don't, but I just don't think issue is really that "cut and dry".

Peace...

[chipmac]

Of course the issue is never cut and dry. Everyone will need to make their own decision on the value of the player they decide to buy. They just need to understand that if they own a new HDTV with a better deinterlacing chip and scaling capabilities they most likely will not see the big difference like those of us who bought a player with the Faroudja deinterlacing chip and connected it to an older HDTV with poor deinterlacing and no scaling. I've seen so many posts lately from new owners who wonder why they bothered to upgrade because they can't see a noticeable increase in PQ and it almost always has to do with the fact that their TV is not using the deinterlacing of the player because the TV is converting to 540p or 1080i. The other reason can be that they are buying a $100 progressive player with equal or worse deinterlacing compared to the one inside the TV.

As for the Samsung 931 here's a quote from the Home Theater Spot from a Spottie editor who also is part of the Secret's Shootout on DVD Players.

Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's stupid the DCDi only works with the DVI and not the component. I wonder if it looks bad in component. Anyone compare between component and DVI with this player yet?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I brought up the same thing to Samsung when I first found out that this player was not using the Faroudja chip on the component outs. The reason I heard was that it would have increased the cost of the player $20 to add additional video DACs. With the current dearth of lower cost Faroudja-equipped players, Samsung could have greatly increased their market and therefore their sales by adding this. I mean, how many people would be put off by having to spend another $20?
BTW, there is no comparison between the component and DVI outputs of this player. If you were only going to use the component outs, you'd be better off to pick up a Panasonic S35 for $100 and save some money.

So to answer the original poster's question as to why a progressive player is needed; if you have an older HDTV the purchase of a quality player with the Faroudja deinterlacing chip and a MPEG decoder without the CUE bug will give you a much smoother image free of jaggies than you can get from an interlaced player letting your TV handle the progressive conversion. However if you have a newer model HDTV or one that does not display native 480p from the player the increase in PQ will be much less or not at all to most people. Sure there is one less conversion with a DVI player but unless the display is a fixed pixel LCD, plasma or DLP type display then the display has to convert it to analog for display anyway. Then if it then needs to convert to 540p or 1080i it's converting it again and still not using the 480p signal it was sent originally from the progressive player you thought you needed.

The best thing is to buy from a place that will let you return it if you don't see the value in the upgrade. Also don't think that a $100 to $200 player is going to have dramatic increase in PQ. The days of the inexpensive Panny progresive players with a Faroudja chip inside are gone.

[tomdkat]

Originally Posted by chipmac

They just need to understand that if they own a new HDTV with a better deinterlacing chip and scaling capabilities they most likely will not see the big difference like those of us who bought a player with the Faroudja deinterlacing chip and connected it to an older HDTV with poor deinterlacing and no scaling.

This is an interesting comment since people have provided great positive feedback regarding non-Faroudja based progressive scan DVD players being connected to their HDTVs. Yes, the new HDTVs are improving their de-interlacing abilities. However, DVD players are not remaining "stagnant" and are also improving in their de-interlacing abilities. So, one must take into consideration which end is able to de-interlace "better". Comparing the de-interlacing ability of a 2004 or later HDTV with that of the Toshiba SD-5109 isn't really a valid comparison. However, comparing that with one of the newer Denons (like the DVD-2900 or maybe the DVD-5900) might be a better comparisons. I'm just talking about "progress scan DVD players" right now and not any specific players.

I've seen so many posts lately from new owners who wonder why they bothered to upgrade because they can't see a noticeable increase in PQ and it almost always has to do with the fact that their TV is not using the deinterlacing of the player because the TV is converting to 540p or 1080i. The other reason can be that they are buying a $100 progressive player with equal or worse deinterlacing compared to the one inside the TV.

The third reason, which is VERY important and often overlooked, is people's expectations. People read forums like this, AVS Forum, and Home Theater SPot and read the "glowing" comments from forum members regarding the video quality of their progressive scan DVD players. Comments like "3-D video image", "film-like", etc., are what people read but they don't take into consideration if they will be able to notice those same qualities themselves. They get all "excited" and run out and spend money only to find they don't see the same video qualities they've read so much about. The CUE is similar. People make the CUE sound like it's plainly obvious to everyone, when that just isn't the case.

People's expectations must be taken into consideration when discussing these kinds of investments (in display or DVD player gear).

As for the Samsung 931 here's a quote from the Home Theater Spot from a Spottie editor who also is part of the Secret's Shootout on DVD Players.

Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's stupid the DCDi only works with the DVI and not the component. I wonder if it looks bad in component. Anyone compare between component and DVI with this player yet?
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hmmm.. from what I understand DCDi is for video sourced material so if I'm watching film sourced material I don't think DCDi processing would be invoked unless I set the player to some mode to force it. The fact that DCDi doesn't apply to component video output doesn't address the de-interlacing in general and when it applies.

I brought up the same thing to Samsung when I first found out that this player was not using the Faroudja chip on the component outs. The reason I heard was that it would have increased the cost of the player $20 to add additional video DACs. With the current dearth of lower cost Faroudja-equipped players, Samsung could have greatly increased their market and therefore their sales by adding this. I mean, how many people would be put off by having to spend another $20?

Does this imply they only output interlaced video via component video connections? If not, do they have a second de-interlacer on-board to output 480p, at least, via component video? If they don't wouldn't they need additional video DACs anyway? What am I missing here?

BTW, there is no comparison between the component and DVI outputs of this player. If you were only going to use the component outs, you'd be better off to pick up a Panasonic S35 for $100 and save some money.

I've heard that general comment made about DVI vs component, in general regardless of the specific player being discussed. I haven't read too many comments about the component video output of this player as those who bought it seemed most interested in the DVI output anyway.

However if you have a newer model HDTV or one that does not display native 480p from the player the increase in PQ will be much less or not at all to most people.

Even here, I have to question to "quality" of the video being input to the display. If the TV needs to upconvert the 480 signal to 540p or higher anyway, I wonder how upconverting an interlaced image compares to upconverting a de-interlaced image. I guess this just adds to the subjectivity of the matter.

Sure there is one less conversion with a DVI player but unless the display is a fixed pixel LCD, plasma or DLP type display then the display has to convert it to analog for display anyway. Then if it then needs to convert to 540p or 1080i it's converting it again and still not using the 480p signal it was sent originally from the progressive player you thought you needed.

If we're talking DVI, I'm not sure we're still necessarily talking 480p anymore as the current crop of DVI-capable DVD players also output 720p and 1080i. I'm not sure of the new Denon which I think has a DVI output but I'm not sure if it upconverts to 720p or 1080i or not.

Assuming we're talking 480p over DVI to a CRT-based RPTV for now, we've got a digital path from the DVD player to the TV. It upconverts the video signal to 540p (or higher if configured to do so). I don't see why it wouldn't do this digitally since it's already got a digital video signal. Then it must convert that signal to analog for display. Depending on when the upconversion takes place, we can still be left with only one digital to analog conversion and the multiple conversions (as is the case with component video connections) is an added cause ot video quality degredation. In the case above where you stipulate current TVs (like my Toshiba 57HX81) that upconvert to 540p or higher, if they're using component video connections the 2 sets of analog to digital conversions that must be done add to the lack of picture quality "difference" since there will be some loss (so I've read) in those conversions.

480p over DVI upconverted to 540p or higher would probably yield better results than 480p over component upconverted to 540p or higher since the upconversion can be done digitally from a digital video source (I guess I've answered my own question from above... ).

The best thing is to buy from a place that will let you return it if you don't see the value in the upgrade. Also don't think that a $100 to $200 player is going to have dramatic increase in PQ. The days of the inexpensive Panny progresive players with a Faroudja chip inside are gone.

Unless the $200 player they get is one of those Panasonic players. I do agree with you 100% that finding a place with a good return policy is absolutely crucial to make sure one isn't "stuck" with something they don't want or like.

Peace...

[chipmac]

Hey Tom I'll try to respond to some of your comments in detail over the weekend when I have more time but have you noticed that the original poster, Jerm, hasn't jumped back into the dicussion.

He posts the question and we try to answer but I wonder if we did or just confuse the matter even more.

[tomdkat]

Originally Posted by chipmac

but have you noticed that the original poster, Jerm, hasn't jumped back into the dicussion.

Yeah I noticed that too. Maybe he's given up and decided to go back to VHS or maybe he'll give D-VHS a try.



Have a great weekend....

Peace...

[chipmac]

This is an interesting comment since people have provided great positive feedback regarding non-Faroudja based progressive scan DVD players being connected to their HDTVs. Yes, the new HDTVs are improving their de-interlacing abilities. However, DVD players are not remaining "stagnant" and are also improving in their de-interlacing abilities. So, one must take into consideration which end is able to de-interlace "better". Comparing the de-interlacing ability of a 2004 or later HDTV with that of the Toshiba SD-5109 isn't really a valid comparison. However, comparing that with one of the newer Denons (like the DVD-2900 or maybe the DVD-5900) might be a better comparisons. I'm just talking about "progress scan DVD players" right now and not any specific players.

Well it's hard to tell which people are really seeing an improvement and why unless they list their TV and player. I'll bet many people that claim to see an improvement have older HDTVs and are just receently getting around to upgrading their player to a progressive model. Another reason is that they're upgrading to a player that has much better deinterlacing abilities than the early pro- scan player they originally bought but it's still connected to a pre-2003 model HDTV. I think we've almost reached the limit to how much better the deinterlacing can look in 480p mode and that whatever improvements in design that the chip makers are doing has more to do with other things like reading poorly flagged discs and better video handling to bring it up to the level of their handling of film material.

The third reason, which is VERY important and often overlooked, is people's expectations. People read forums like this, AVS Forum, and Home Theater SPot and read the "glowing" comments from forum members regarding the video quality of their progressive scan DVD players. Comments like "3-D video image", "film-like", etc., are what people read but they don't take into consideration if they will be able to notice those same qualities themselves. They get all "excited" and run out and spend money only to find they don't see the same video qualities they've read so much about. The CUE is similar. People make the CUE sound like it's plainly obvious to everyone, when that just isn't the case.

People's expectations must be taken into consideration when discussing these kinds of investments (in display or DVD player gear).

I wholeheartedly agree. This is the reason I originally said if you have a newer model HDTV that scales and doesn't display 480p natively that they probably shouldn't bother with a new player with progressive out. If they do a search and see all of us early adopters who gushed over the big improvement we saw then they'll expect the same results and in most cases they'll be disappointed. Also like the CUE bug they might not be able to see the difference until it's pointed out to them but once it is it's painfully obvious. My Panny RP 56 has the flicker bug and I've looked for it but really never see it I believe because other moving things in the image tends to mask it from normal viewing but the CUE bug was something I noticed before I knew what it was called.

Hmmm.. from what I understand DCDi is for video sourced material so if I'm watching film sourced material I don't think DCDi processing would be invoked unless I set the player to some mode to force it. The fact that DCDi doesn't apply to component video output doesn't address the de-interlacing in general and when it applies.

The reason I believe that the DCDi is only invoked when the DVI port is used is that this is the only time the Faroudja is in use.

Does this imply they only output interlaced video via component video connections? If not, do they have a second de-interlacer on-board to output 480p, at least, via component video? If they don't wouldn't they need additional video DACs anyway? What am I missing here?

No you can get progressive out from component but in this case it uses the Sigma design chip for deinterlacing. I can't find the original post or web site that explained it to paste here but if I remember correctly they use the Faroudja chip for DVI because of the scaling the player does through the DVI port. There is no scaling through component so they decided to use the Sigma chip which was cheaper rather than more video DACs. Having the same chip work one way through DVI and another way through component was too costly. I'm not 100% on this though.

I've heard that general comment made about DVI vs component, in general regardless of the specific player being discussed. I haven't read too many comments about the component video output of this player as those who bought it seemed most interested in the DVI output anyway.

All of these up converting DVI players tend to perform poorly when they're compared to the better 480p only players when used on the component outs only. Many can't pass pluge or clip the black level. Many have poor color levels. They are getting better as new models are released or updates are loaded to the existing models but it seems like if the only true reason to get one is for upvonverting to HD res. If you can't use that and you don't have DVI on your TV don't bother. Then we get back to if your TV upsamples the image you need to see which one does it better.

Even here, I have to question to "quality" of the video being input to the display. If the TV needs to upconvert the 480 signal to 540p or higher anyway, I wonder how upconverting an interlaced image compares to upconverting a de-interlaced image. I guess this just adds to the subjectivity of the matter.

It also adds another conversion and most times this adds artifacts that are more distracting. Sure if you have a no name $50 interlaced supermarket player then the PQ would be less going into the TV than the $300 Denon 1600 progressive player but perhaps a $100 JVC interlaced player would be just as good as the Denon since you're not using the benefits of the $300 Denon anyway on a TV that can't display 480p native.

480p over DVI upconverted to 540p or higher would probably yield better results than 480p over component upconverted to 540p or higher since the upconversion can be done digitally from a digital video source (I guess I've answered my own question from above...

In theory this sounds correct but the problem arises in CRT based models because of the lack of pixel to pixel mapping in the upconversion from 480p to 540p. When you have a fixed pixel display such as DLP, LCD and LCOS the all digital nature allows the pixel to pixel mapping that's needed for proper scaling in the digital realm. So even if the conversion is done all digital from 480p to 540p and received via DVI the problem of artifacts comes up in the conversion to analog for display.


To wrap it up it does come down to the equipment you own and how sensitive you are to noticing these differences that are probably very minor to most eyes. they are there and can be pointed out and or measured with test equipment but the truth is we don't watch our DVDs with test gear and are usually so wrapped up in the story that we're not noticing the things that are wrong with the picture. Then on certain occasions we'll notice something on screen that is just not right and once we see it we always see it and try all we can to fix it or make it go away.

[Jerm]

Originally Posted by chipmac

Hey Tom I'll try to respond to some of your comments in detail over the weekend when I have more time but have you noticed that the original poster, Jerm, hasn't jumped back into the dicussion.

He posts the question and we try to answer but I wonder if we did or just confuse the matter even more.

Actually, I've been out of town for the past week, and I haven't been able to look at this until now.

[tomdkat]

Originally Posted by chipmac

Well it's hard to tell which people are really seeing an improvement and why unless they list their TV and player. I'll bet many people that claim to see an improvement have older HDTVs and are just receently getting around to upgrading their player to a progressive model. Another reason is that they're upgrading to a player that has much better deinterlacing abilities than the early pro- scan player they originally bought but it's still connected to a pre-2003 model HDTV.

Yeah, I didn't post any links to discussion so I'm sure this is the case for some people. In other cases, they bought HDTVs (or HD monitors at least) and were looking to either get their first DVD player or upgrade their current interlaced only player. In other cases the discussion centered around which particular display was being used, etc....

The one general consensus that was reached was the Pioneer Elite HDTVs were about the only TVs where a difference in picture quality between a progressive scan DVD player and an interlaced player "feeding" the TV would be marginal given the great de-interlacing ability of the TV.

I think we've almost reached the limit to how much better the deinterlacing can look in 480p mode and that whatever improvements in design that the chip makers are doing has more to do with other things like reading poorly flagged discs and better video handling to bring it up to the level of their handling of film material.

I would venture to say the same about de-interlacing 480i to 480p in HD displays as well. The only difference being up until now the DVD player had the advantage of doing this de-interlacing digitally and WITHOUT any prior digital to analog conversions being performed.

I wholeheartedly agree. This is the reason I originally said if you have a newer model HDTV that scales and doesn't display 480p natively that they probably shouldn't bother with a new player with progressive out.

Actually, this I DO disagree with, at least with the way you've expressed this point. I own a 2001 Toshiba 57HX81 and I've got a Pioneer DV-656a connected to it and a Panasonic DVD-XP30 connected to it. I have the XP-30 as my "reference" player since it has the Faroudja de-interlacer. I've done some video performance comparisons between the two players and I'm amazed at how closely they actually perform. I'm sure my 57HX81 is "getting in the way" to a degree which might contribute to why they two players look so close in video output. However, I do notice a picture quality difference between the Panasonic and the Pioneer. BOTH players result in a better video picture than if I let the TV do the de-interlacing and BOTH progressive images from the DVD players are being upconverted to 540p, so based on your argument they should appear equal since the SAME circuitry is upconverting both progressive images. Since the Panasonic is arguably "feeding" my Toshiba a "better" progressive signal, the TVs de-interlacer is bypassed but the upconversion process has better "source" material to upconvert resulting in a sharper picture from the Panasonic as displayed on my TV.

If they do a search and see all of us early adopters who gushed over the big improvement we saw then they'll expect the same results and in most cases they'll be disappointed.

I agree this is the case in some number of cases but I'm not sure about "most".

Also like the CUE bug they might not be able to see the difference until it's pointed out to them but once it is it's painfully obvious.

I have 3 Pioneer DVD players and all three most likely have the CUE. I've read countless threads on what to look for and have yet to see it on my TV during "normal" movie viewing and if I DO see it, it's definitely not "painfully" obvious. This is what I'm getting at. To say people "probably" won't notice a difference is a different statement than saying they "might" not notice a difference, which changes their expectations some and in a more "positive" or "accurate" way in that they understand that they should just see how it looks for them instead of looking for something that will simply blow them away.

No you can get progressive out from component but in this case it uses the Sigma design chip for deinterlacing.

This, to me, sounds like they've "violated" their own reason for not being able to use the Faroudja chip for ALL de-interlacing. Obviously, that's why I don't make DVD players for a living.

All of these up converting DVI players tend to perform poorly when they're compared to the better 480p only players when used on the component outs only.

Be careful here as the Momitsu V880 can output 720p and 1080i via component connections...

Many can't pass pluge or clip the black level. Many have poor color levels. They are getting better as new models are released or updates are loaded to the existing models but it seems like if the only true reason to get one is for upvonverting to HD res. If you can't use that and you don't have DVI on your TV don't bother.

I said this before about the DVI capable DVD players. People are getting those to provide a digital video path between their TVs and DVD players so I'm sure most people don't even care about the component video performance, or lack thereof.